At the juncture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, British scientists Ray Lankester and Arthur Tansley developed the idea of the ecology and the ecosystem. Both were Fabian Socialists, a variation of Marxism. Lankester was a zoologist and at a relatively young age, became a friend to an aging Marx. When Marx was in his senior years, Lankester frequented Marx’s house and was among the few who attended Marx’s funeral. Lankester once wrote to Marx saying that he was studying Das Kapital “with the greatest pleasure and profit.”
Tansley was the most important figure in ecology and botany during that period in England, and as the first chairman of the British Ecological Society, he was the inventor of the term “ecosystem.” While attending the University of London, Tansley was deeply influenced by Lankester.
The originating links between ecological ideas and Marxism appear to emerge in this connection between Lankester, Tansley, and Marxism — though of course ecology and environmentalism are not the same thing. Ecology is about the relationship between living things and the environment, while environmentalism is concerned with ecological disasters. Ecology, however, is closely related to environmentalism because it provides the theoretical basis for defining ecological disasters. Ecological Marxism, which was derived from ecology, is a further step away from these ideas.
Ecological Marxism adds the concept of ecological crises as an augmentation to Marxian arguments about the economic crisis of capitalism. It seeks to expand the supposed conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by adding an inherent conflict between production and the environment. This is the theory of double crisis or double conflict. In Marxist theory, the basic conflict of capitalism is between productive forces and the relations of production, which is called the primary conflict. The secondary conflict happens between the environment of production (the ecosystem) and the productive forces and relations of production together. In this theory, the primary conflict leads to economic crisis, while the secondary conflict leads to ecological crisis.
The century-long development of capitalism proved Marxism wrong after the failed prediction that capitalism would collapse due to economic crisis. On the contrary, capitalism continues to prosper. In response, the notion of ecological crises became a tool of communism as leftist scholars discovered that Marxism could be a theoretical basis for environmentalism, thus radicalizing the environmentalist movement and worldview.
From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism
In the understanding of believers in orthodox religions of both the East and West, human beings were created by God in his own image, and human life is thus endowed with a higher value, purpose, and dignity than other forms of life on earth. Likewise, the natural environment is created by God. Man has the obligation to care for nature; though simultaneously nature exists for man — not vice versa.
In the eyes of atheists and materialists, however, human life has no such special quality. Engels writes in one of his essays: “Life is the mode of existence of protein bodies. …” In this view, human life is a no more than a unique configuration of proteins, not different in any essential manner from animals or plants — thus it is only logical that humans may be deprived of freedom, and even their lives, in the name of protecting nature.
In 1862, in a book on organic chemistry, German chemist Justus von Liebig, Marx’s colleague, criticized British farmers for using imported bird droppings as a fertilizer. British agriculture had benefited from bird manure, an efficient fertilizer, and crop yields had significantly increased. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the British had ample high-quality food sources. The bird droppings business had benefited businessmen in various countries, the British farmers, and the British public.
Why did Justus von Liebig want to condemn this practice? His moral indignation was due to four reasons. First, the process of collecting bird droppings damages nature; second, merchants exploit workers with low wages; third, high yields of food stimulate population growth, which in turn requires more food, exceeding what nature can supply; and fourth, more people and livestock mean more manure and garbage.
At the time, while writing Das Kapital, Marx carefully studied Justus von Liebig’s work. He praised it for having “developed from the point of view of natural science, the negative, i.e., destructive, side of modern agriculture.” Like Justus von Liebig, Marx regarded any effort in creating wealth by using natural resources as a vicious cycle, with the conclusion that “a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system.”
After Lenin and his Bolshevik Party launched a coup in Russia, they quickly promulgated the “Decree on Land” and the “Decree on Forests” to nationalize land, forest, water, mineral, animal, and plant resources, and prevent the public from using them without authorization.
American meteorologist and writer Brian Sussman writes in his book Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America that Marx and Lenin’s ideas are highly consistent with those of today’s environmentalists. In their view, no one has the right to profit from natural resources: “Whether it’s saving the forests, whales, snails, or the climate, it all comes back to a deep-rooted belief that the quest for such profit is immoral and will ultimately destroy the planet unless ground to a halt.”
This global environmental movement has involved a large number of thinkers, politicians, scientists, social activists, and media personalities. This text does not have sufficient space to enumerate their thoughts, speeches, and actions in full, but one figure cannot be ignored. This is the founder of the United Nations Environment Program, Maurice Strong. Strong, a Canadian, also organized the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment as well as the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Strong is the nephew of Anna Louise Strong, a well-known pro-communist journalist who settled in China. Maurice Strong, who was deeply influenced by his aunt, described himself as “a socialist in ideology and a capitalist in methodology.”
Maurice Strong has come to occupy an important place in the global environmental movement. “He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade at a global conference, he’s the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel.”
The views espoused by the United Nations Environment Agency led by Strong appear almost identical to Marxism: “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” Maurice Strong chose to settle down in Beijing after retirement and died in 2015.
Natalie Grant Wraga, a late expert on the Soviet Union, conducted an in-depth study on the issue and wrote: “Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.” In fact, environmentalism does not originate only from the former communist bloc. It goes deeper and relates to the overall goal of communism to undermine the cause of freedom around the world.
From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist bloc, communists began sowing their factors in both Eastern and Western societies and also sought to establish a tightly controlled global government.
In order to achieve this goal, communism must create or use an “enemy” that threatens all mankind and intimidates the public around the world into handing over both individual liberty and state sovereignty. Creating a global panic about looming environmental and ecological disasters almost appears an inevitable route to achieving this goal.
The Three Stages of Environmentalism
The formation and development of the environmental movement is inextricably linked to communism. Specifically, its development has gone through three stages. The first stage is the theoretical gestation period, which can be counted from the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels in 1848 to the first Earth Day in 1970.
At the beginning of this stage, Marx and his disciples did not regard environmentalism as the focus of their theoretical discourse, but Marxist atheism and materialism were naturally consistent with the main tendency of environmentalism. Marx declared that capitalism is opposed to nature (that is, the environment). Marx’s disciples devised the term “ecosystem,” and quietly included environmentalism in certain subjects where it was set to ferment.
In the last decade of this phase, from 1960 to 1970, two best-selling books — Silent Spring (1962) and Population Bomb (1968) — appeared in the United States. Environmentalism entered the public arena under the guise of “environmental protection.”
The landmark event at the beginning of the second phase was the first Earth Day held in 1970, with the United Nations shortly after, in 1972, holding the first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. At this stage, a battery of organizations were rapidly formed and their activities increased. In the United States and Europe, they pushed governments with propaganda, protests, and activism under the guise of scientific research, legislation, meetings, and so on.
At the macro level, the counterculture of the 1960s functioned almost like a military parade of communist elements in the West. They took the stage by co-opting the civil rights and anti-war movements, and then quickly spread to other forms of anti-capitalist battles, including the feminist movement, the homosexual movement, and more.
After the 1970s, after the anti-Vietnam war movement ebbed, communist ideas began their process of institutionalization called “the long march through the institutions,” while also flooding into feminism and environmentalism — and this is the root cause of the upsurge in environmentalist ideology and agitation.
One of the most important forces that shouldered the banner of environmentalism in the 1970s were the hippies, the backbone of the counterculture. In fact, communism was in the process of repackaging itself under the banner of environmentalism after its failure in the Cold War, with the intent to introduce global communism under any other name.
The third phase began on the eve of the end of the Cold War. In 1988, the United Nations set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the concept of global warming began to enter the political realm. On the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, an international environmental conference was held in Moscow. In his speech, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, advocated the establishment of an international environmental monitoring system, signed a covenant to protect “unique environmental zones,” expressed support for U.N. environmental programs, and called for a follow-up conference (held in June 1992 in Brazil).
Almost all Western environmentalists accepted these proposals. Global warming became the main enemy of mankind for environmentalists at this stage. Propaganda that used environmental protection as an excuse for heavy-handed policies suddenly escalated, and the number and scale of environmental laws and regulations proliferated rapidly.
Environmentalism has become the main tool for restricting the freedom of citizens around the world, depriving nations of sovereignty, and limiting and fighting against the free societies of the West. The result was that after the end of the Cold War, the former communists of the Soviet Union, as well as the communists and their fellow travelers in the West, all started afresh to join the environmental protection movement. Environmentalism emerged as a force on the world stage and increasingly began to take on a communist color.
From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism
The earth is the living environment of mankind, providing food, resources, and conditions for development. It has allowed humanity to prosper for thousands of years.
Humanity interacts closely with the natural environment. Both traditional Chinese and Western culture emphasize the benign symbiotic relationship between man and nature. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Dong Zhongshu writes in Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals, “Everything on earth was created for the benefit of man.”  The meaning is that the purpose of the Creator was to offer conditions for humanity to live, and all things on earth may be used by man. At the same time, people must follow the principles of heaven and earth in their lives, and thus use everything in moderation and proactively maintain and safeguard the natural environment in which human beings are to live.
Western traditional culture states that the Creator provides the natural environment for human beings and asks them to manage it. Thus, man should cherish and make good use of the natural environment. In the philosophy of traditional Chinese culture, there is a balance between everything, as well as the imperative to avoid harm. The Confucian Doctrine of the Mean states: “It is this same system of laws by which all created things are produced and develop themselves each in its order and system without injuring one another; that the operations of Nature take their course without conflict or confusion. …” 
The Chinese ancients valued protection of the environment. According to historical records, at the time of Yu the Great: “In the three months of the spring, people didn’t take axes to the forest so the forest could flourish. In the three months of the summer, people didn’t put nets to rivers so fishes could breed.” 
Zengzi, a Confucian scholar, wrote: “Wood could only be cut down in the right seasons and animals only slaughtered at the right time.”  These show the traditional Chinese idea of moderation in all things and of cherishing and protecting the natural environment.
After the industrial revolution, industrial pollution caused severe ecological damage, and Western societies began to become aware of the issue. After environmental protection laws and standards were implemented, pollution was effectively treated, and the environment greatly improved. In the process, public awareness of environmental protection grew enormously, and it was widely acknowledged that environmental protection is a proper goal.
We must distinguish between several ideas: environmental protection, environmental movements, and environmentalism. Environmental protection, as the name indicates, is the protection of the environment. Since the beginning of human civilization, people have understood the need to protect the environment, and this had nothing to do with any particular political ideology.
The environmental movement is a social and political movement for environmental issues. Its primary goal is to change environmental policies and public thinking and habits through mass movements, media influence, and political agitation. Environmentalism is a philosophy and ideology emphasizing the need for protecting the environment and the harmonious coexistence between human society and the natural ecology. The motivations behind environmental protection and environmentalism are not the same as communism — but communists excel at hijacking mass movements and manipulating them to their advantage. Thus we see that from the beginning of modern environmentalism, communists have systematically gone about co-opting the movement.
The issues surrounding environmentalism today are extremely complex: The movement has used sensational rhetoric and people’s genuine desire to protect the environment to create a global political movement. Many participants are well-meaning, have a sense of justice, and truly care about the future of mankind.
However, what many don’t recognize is how communists use environmentalism to claim a moral high ground to promote their own agenda. This is how environmental protection becomes highly politicized, made extreme, and even turned into a pseudo religion — but one without traditional moral foundations. Misleading propaganda and various mandatory political measures have become dominant, turning environmentalism into a kind of communism-lite.
From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism
Today, the law has been turned against the divine teachings that originally inspired it. Legality has become the method the devil uses to trample upon the moral foundation of human society, bringing it to the brink of destruction.
Anti-traditional and immoral legislation has weakened the ability of the law to maintain social order, leaving the expansion of state power as the only “solution” to the malaise.
De Tocqueville, the French thinker, cautioned that dictatorship was the only means of government that could bring people together in a society devoid of faith. Today’s perversion of the law is eroding traditional beliefs and driving society toward tyranny.
Should the devil succeed in obtaining full control of the law, it would prove a powerful weapon in the corruption of humanity. Under such circumstances, people would be left with only two options: either to refuse to follow the authorities, or to betray their morality in order to comply with the degenerate laws. The former would mean the destruction of law in practice, for as jurist Harold Berman put it, “The law must be believed in; otherwise, it exists in name only.” The latter option entails a slippery slope of moral decline, creating a downward cycle in which the law and the state of society compete in a race to reach rock bottom. In either case, society at large would have no way out of this demonic vortex.
The 1958 book The Naked Communist lists 45 goals pursued by the Communist Party to infiltrate and undermine the United States. Seven of them concern the legal system. 
The 16th goal consists of using the court’s technical decisions to weaken important U.S. institutions by claiming that their conduct infringes upon public rights.
The 24th goal is to abolish all laws restricting indecent content by portraying them as censorship that violates free speech and expression.
The 29th is to challenge the Constitution as flawed, obsolete, or incompatible with international practice.
The 33rd is to abolish all laws and legislations that interfere with Communist Party operations.
The 38th goal is to make it legal for non-police agents to carry out arrests. All behavioral problems are to be delegated to mental health workers.
The 39th is to wrest control over the field of psychiatry and impose mental health laws to control individuals who don’t accept communist aims.
The 45th goal is to abolish the Connally Reservation, also known as the Connally Amendment. This regulation gives the United States the right to favor domestic jurisdiction over rulings by international courts. The purpose of this goal is to prevent the United States from protecting its domestic sovereignty and instead to have international bodies such as the World Court overrule the U.S. judiciary.
Comparing the goals listed above with what has already been implemented, it is apparent that communism is well-placed to continue undermining U.S. law and justice.
Be it state-sponsored policies of hatred in countries controlled by communist regimes, or regulation in Western countries where communist ideology has eroded the legislative and judicial institutions, in both cases the target is the spirit of the law—that is, reverence for the divine and traditional morality.
If we are unable to maintain the moral standards dictated by divine commandment as our criterion for recognizing ultimate good and evil, then we are doomed to lose our judicial independence to the communist specter. Agents under the influence of communism will use the law to suppress the righteous and promote the wicked—unwittingly executing the specter’s plans to exterminate humanity. There is little time left to reverse this trend.
When liberal judges can’t find wording in the U.S. Constitution to support their personal opinions, they use laws passed in other countries to sustain their arguments.
For instance, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a judge wanted to repeal a Texas statute “banning consenting homosexual adults from engaging in sexual acts,” but could not find anything from the Constitution to support his case. He then quoted an “authoritative agency” outside of the United States as saying that homosexuality was “an integral part of human freedom in many other countries,” and successfully repealed the law. This case resulted in repeals of similar statutes in 13 other states.
Communist thought has spread around the world in different forms. The socialist trend throughout Asia and Europe is plain to see, and it has great influence in Africa and Latin America as well. Countries such as Zimbabwe and Venezuela are socialist countries in all but name. Even Canada is not free of its influence.
Commerce and globalization have brought the United States into closer connection with other countries. In order to introduce elements of socialism domestically, liberal judges leverage the excuse of conforming to international convention and then use case law to alter the spirit of the Constitution. As leader of the free world, if even the United States cannot maintain basic traditional standards, the entire globe will be lost to communism.
Under liberal influence, many judges or legislative agencies deliberately curtail the legitimate power of law enforcement, effectively turning a blind eye to crime. The communist specter’s aim in doing this is to paralyze the state apparatus in order to stir up social turmoil, which in turn creates excuses either for the expansion of government, or the necessary conditions for a coup or revolution.
Many states have passed far-left laws, a typical example being the “sanctuary state” act. Among other provisions, a sanctuary state prohibits federal officials from arresting illegal immigrants in local prisons, including those with outstanding warrants for their arrest. Local police are barred from cooperating with federal agents to enforce immigration laws.
This poses a serious security risk for the public. In July 2015, illegal immigrant Jose Ines Garcia Zarate shot and killed a young woman who was walking along Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. Zarate had a history of crime: He had been charged with seven felonies involving drugs and robbery, and possession of weaponry, and had been deported five times. When San Francisco passed its sanctuary city law, Zarate was released from custody and evaded the federal immigration authorities who had been demanding his sixth deportation.
When a criminal stands trial, extremely strict standards are placed on the prosecution. This is ostensibly to protect the legitimate rights of the suspect, but often the result is that criminals are able to take advantage of loopholes in the law. Cunning suspects, or those who enjoy status or privileges, those who understand the law and regulations, or those who hire capable attorneys, can drag out the legal process at great cost to the judicial system. Even guilty suspects can be very hard to bring to justice.
Influenced by the spread of “sexual liberation,” verdicts in cases involving sex crimes often cite findings in recent research to argue that the damage caused by the abuse is little or nonexistent. Many cases have been resolved by reducing the sentences of sexual predators. 
Many ordinary criminals have had their original sentences reduced as well, owing to budget shortages or on account of prisoners’ rights. The real motivation, though, is political correctness—to weaken the power of the law, disturb social order, and pave the road for further expansion of government.
For the law to be fair, it must administer strict punishment to those who commit unpardonable crimes. Since antiquity, murder was punishable by death. But today, some countries and territories have abolished capital punishment on such the grounds of humanity, tolerance, or a supposed respect for life.
Under the influence of twisted liberalism and progressivism, some people give undue weight to prisoners’ rights—no matter the severity of the crime—while remaining strangely silent regarding the victims. If a murderer is fed and housed by taxpayer money, his loss of freedom is hardly a fair trade for the death of the victim and the trauma it causes to loved ones.
Many researchers in the United States have found that capital punishment is effective in deterring crime. David Muhlhausen, senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 that capital punishment has a deterrent effect and can save lives.
In the 1990s, three professors, including Paul Rubin at Emory University, examined 20 years of crime statistics from 3,000 cities and towns across the United States and concluded that “each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders.” 
Even scholars who are against capital punishment must concede that it has a deterrent effect.
By pushing the concepts of freedom and legality to extremes, the devil has distorted the law and robbed it of its sanctity.
The book of Genesis describes the destruction of Sodom. One of the crimes the doomed city’s residents committed was homosexuality. This is the origin of the term “sodomy,” meaning sexual relations between men. Those with basic knowledge of the Bible would know that homosexuality goes against the will of God.
In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  When the ruling was passed, the U.S. president at the time changed the banner on the White House’s official Twitter account to the rainbow flag in support of LGBT rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited the 14 states that banned same-sex marriage from enforcing these laws.
In August 2015, a Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk refused to issue marriage certificates for same-sex couples due to her beliefs. She was later jailed for five days since she had defied a U.S. federal court order to issue the documents.  In fact, the court had violated her constitutional right to freedom of belief.
When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, former governor of Arkansas and former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called it “judicial tyranny.” 
Constitutional lawyer and scholar Phyllis Schlafly listed nine methods judges use to undermine social morality. They rewrite the Constitution, censor acknowledgment of God, redefine marriage, undermine U.S. sovereignty, promote pornography, support feminism, handicap law enforcement, interfere with elections, and impose taxes. 
As of 2017, 25 countries and territories have officially acknowledged or accepted same-sex marriage, including developed Western countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. This is a disturbing development. The law has the power to reinforce morality or influence its movement in a new direction. To legalize behavior that deviates from traditional moral values is the same as having the government and laws train the people to betray morality and disobey God’s commandments.
Under the influence of political correctness, criticism of the chaos that our society finds itself in—whether from the people, civil associations, or religious groups in particular—can be easily escalated to the level of politics or law, and result in restrictions on free speech or other punishments. Following the legalization of immoral behavior, any comments or criticisms on related issues are often accused of violating laws, such as those concerning gender discrimination. The law has been twisted into a means of strangling people’s ability to make moral judgments. It is essentially promoting homosexuality and encouraging people to give themselves to endless desire and degeneracy.
Doing Away With Personal Responsibility
Traditional religions emphasize the importance of personal accountability. In the Bible, the book of Ezekiel uses father and son as a parable to depict good and bad examples. Though they are father and son, they bear the consequences of their respective conduct and are not personally responsible for each other’s actions. As the Bible says, “For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” The Chinese believe that goodness begets goodness and that evil will be punished, which states the same principle.
Liberty means responsibility. A person has the right and freedom to choose his ideas, speech, and actions. He also needs to be responsible for his own choices. Once a person has committed a crime, he should be punished accordingly. This is the principle of justice. Liberal judges, however, encourage people to shirk their responsibilities and shift accountability to prevailing social conditions, such as their economic or racial background, physical and mental health, education, and other demographic parameters, allowing criminals to escape legal punishment.
The 1960s was an era of deep transformation across American society. Left-wing students drove the anti-war movement, rock-and-roll, hippie culture, the feminist movement, sexual liberation, and other anti-traditional currents, raising chaos throughout the country.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court in this period was the liberal Earl Warren. During Warren’s term as chief justice, the Supreme Court made very influential and far-reaching rulings. This included the prohibition of prayers in public school  and the allowance of publications featuring sexually explicit material. 
In her book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, scholar Phyllis Schlafly provided statistics showing that from 1966 to 1970, the Supreme Court made 34 rulings that overruled lower level court decisions to prohibit obscene content.  The Supreme Court’s rulings were not signed, and majority consisted of just one or two lines. Put another way, even the justices themselves didn’t bother to rationalize their decisions.
In 1966, Hollywood lifted its restrictions on showing obscene content in film. A profusion of various types of pornographic works soon followed, and today they have saturated every corner of society.
The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It was intended to mean the right to express political opinions, not to manufacture and disseminate pornography.
Legalizing Drug Abuse
As the world got ready to welcome the new year on December 31, 2017, CNN broadcast a piece of footage with multiple shots of a female reporter smoking marijuana. Visibly under the influence, she appeared disoriented and unaware of her surroundings. The broadcast received widespread criticism. 
In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to legalize marijuana as a prescription drug, and many states soon followed suit. By 2012, Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana for “recreational use,” that is, they legalized drug abuse. In these two states, planting, manufacturing, and selling marijuana to adults is completely legal. It has also been legalized in California. In June 2018, the Canadian government announced that marijuana use would become legal nationwide in the near future.
Aside from causing serious damage to the human body, drugs are psychologically addicting. Once dependent, people can abandon all moral inhibitions in order to obtain more of the drug. On the other hand, those who support legalizing marijuana believe as long as marijuana can be obtained legally, that would be an effective way to reduce drug trafficking. They say that legalization allows stricter regulation over the drug, and accordingly a reduction in drug-related crime.
By legalizing drugs, many governments anticipate saving billions of dollars in revenue. But it’s not hard to see that as greater numbers of people become addicts, lose their desire to work, and suffer poor health, productivity will fall, and the aggregate wealth created by society will shrink. It is self-evident that legalizing drugs cannot increase government revenue in the long term.
Furthermore, judgment of right or wrong shouldn’t be based on economic profit, but on divine standards. Traditional morality sees the human form as sacred and created in divine likeness. Western religions believe the body is the “temple of the Holy Ghost,” while in the East, it was believed that the body could improve through cultivation to become a Buddha or a Tao. Drug abuse, then, is an act of desecration.
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, one of the important figures lobbying for the legalization of marijuana in the United States is a wealthy progressive.  In March 2017, six senators wrote letters to the U.S. State Department requesting that this individual be investigated for using his foundation to promote progressivism abroad and subvert conservative governments. 
The legalization of drugs is an additional step in making people lose their inhibitions and cut them off them from the divine. As society experiences turmoil and economic downturns, conditions arise for communists to establish political power.
God is everywhere in American life. The country’s motto is “In God We Trust.” This phrase is common. It’s even on the dollar bills used every day. The U.S. Declaration of Independence described God as the Creator and stated that human rights are what the Creator has given us. All U.S. government officials, including the president and judges, say “So help me God” when they are sworn in. The most common ending in presidential speeches is “God bless America.” The Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools describes the United States as “one nation under God.”
Some of these traditions have lasted for more than two hundred years, almost as long as the history of the United States since its founding. But in the past 60 years, they have been constantly challenged by communist followers.
One national lawyers association aims to remove the Ten Commandments from public display across the United States. The most famous case occurred in Montgomery, Alabama. In 2001, the association called for the removal of a slate bearing the Ten Commandments that was located in the rotunda of the state court. They found a judge appointed by the Democratic president of the time to hear the case. In a 76-page verdict, the judge ruled in favor of the lawyers association. The specifics of the ruling may sound ridiculous. For example, the judge claimed that the “solemn ambience of the rotunda,” the frescoes behind the slate, and the atmosphere created by a picture window featuring a waterfall constituted sufficient reason to have the Ten Commandments removed. The judge also said that the slate’s “sloping top” resembled an open Bible and gave viewers cause to “feel as though the State of Alabama is advancing, endorsing, favoring or preferring, Christianity.” 
This is neither the beginning nor the end of the story. As early as 1980, the Supreme Court had banned the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public schools. This decision catalyzed an overall movement across the country to have the Ten Commandments removed from public view. In Utah, the ACLU even offered a reward to anyone willing to report those plaques and slates that had not yet been taken down. 
One U.S. Circuit Court ruled on June 26, 2002, that public schools are prohibited from holding “sworn oaths” because they included the words “under God.” This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court on June 14, 2004. 
This is an ongoing legal battle. The American national anthem, national motto, Pledge of Allegiance, school prayers, and the like are under siege by atheists and leftist activists.
Here, a brief explanation is necessary to clarify that “God,” as used above, was a general reference to the divine, or the “Creator” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Each religion has its own understanding and recognition of the Creator. Therefore, the word “God” itself does not promote a particular religion or violate the constitutional amendments of the United States. In a nation of deep faith, the rise of an extreme movement attempting to prohibit public praise of God reflects the extent to which the devil has penetrated the field of law.
Altering the Spirit of the Constitution: Interpretation and Case Law
In the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers established the separation of powers, with the judicial branch originally having the least power. Congress (the legislative branch) is responsible for passing laws, the President (the executive branch) is responsible for governance according to those executing and enforcing laws, and the Supreme Court (the judicial branch) has neither the power to pass laws nor to govern.
While the Supreme Court was hearing a case concerning the Pledge of Allegiance, polls indicated that 90 percent of Americans supported retaining the phrase “under God.” In the House of Representatives, there were 416 votes in favor of retention to just three against.  In the Senate, the result was 99 votes to zero.  The Congressional decision reflected the genuine opinion of the American public.
As elected representatives of the people, members of Congress and the president serve terms that range from two to six years before another election is held. As long as the public and mainstream society is guided by divine standards of morality, the extent to which the president and members of Congress can fall toward the left is limited. For example, if mainstream society is against same-sex marriage, it will be difficult for a congressman or senator to support it. If these politicians go against public opinion, they risk being voted out of office.
On the other hand, Supreme Court justices don’t need to heed public opinion, since the terms they hold are for life. Once appointed, they may work for decades. Furthermore, there are only nine justices. It is comparatively easier to influence the decisions made by these nine individuals than it is to alter the whole of mainstream opinion.
Judges rule according to the law, and laws are passed or repealed based on the Constitution. Thus in order to change society through legislation, it is imperative to change the Constitution. In the United States, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of Congress, and three-quarters of the states. These strict measures make it difficult to amend the Constitution outright.
The progressives’ strategy is therefore not to amend the Constitution, but to change the original meaning of the words in the Constitution by reinterpreting them. They regard the Constitution as a “living” and continually “evolving” document, and going on precedent set by the Supreme Court, encode the views of the Left into law. In this way, they covertly exert their will over the Constitution, which is tantamount to undermining it.
Divine commandment is no longer the highest principle. The Constitution has taken a heavy beating under the gavels of liberal Supreme Court justices. Since Supreme Court rulings are final and must be respected by even the president, the judicial branch is taking an ever-increasing share of authority among the three branches established by the Founding Fathers. In practice, Supreme Court justices have acquired partial legislative and even executive powers.
Liberal Supreme Court justices have brought a number of consequences to American society that are severe and difficult to remedy. As things stand, the Supreme Court can, through case hearings, order the removal of the Ten Commandments from public schools and spaces, rewrite criminal procedures, raise taxes, recognize the right to abortion and same-sex marriage, allow the publication and display of pornography, and so on.
The growing supremacy of the judiciary combined with the ruling of liberal judges has given the specter of communism an important tool for achieving its designs.